An interesting read

[98Z5V]

I'll start.

NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!  EVER@!!  I WANT ALL MY INCHES BACK!!!  

 

That's a start that just won't work, though. IMHO 

[98Z5V]

39 minutes ago, NTXshooter said:

Would you rather enact a federal license now with a republican president and congress where we could get favorable rights or wait for a democratic president and congress where you will get gun bans.

 

We should heed NTXs word,when contemplating this action...

Edited April 29, 2018 by 98Z5V

[sketch]

listen to your man at min 30/35 on...  hes got insight to it right? just my . 02 non sense for a topic over my head.. but i listen and i learn, all have good coments and talking it over is the process. Gun voilence and mass shootings must stop. no one wants a spagetti western show where the boots are all reverbed over the floor. lol.i just got the vibe for primus. 

 im way off again arnt I? shits! 

[Sisco]

Rather have a Federal License than a Federal Ban, which could very well be the choice in the next few years. Or worse, a ban might not be a choice, but the absolute law of the land. And if a licensing system saved a bunch of kids lives because a deranged misfit couldn't buy or procure a firearm to take intoa school, I would do it. Do I want to? Hell no! But the simple fact is there are people who should never have access to highly capable firearms. And right now they do. That has to change and we better take action to change it while we can, because the political climate against firearms could, and probably will, get a lot worse in the near future. The last thing I want is for a Diane Feinstein directing the conversation on gun control in two years, rather then a Lindsey Graham.

[NTXshooter]

Here's how I see it.  We can be defensive and stand on our principles wrapped in the 2nd Amendment and shout "Not one more Inch". Keeping in mind that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms  but not what type of arms.  We already have gun bans and restrictions that are standing up in court.

Or, we can be offensive and come up with a licensing system that protects our rights to own the guns we  want.

Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more. George S. Patton
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/george_s_patton_125072

[jtallen83]

3 hours ago, Sisco said:

And if a licensing system saved a bunch of kids lives because a deranged misfit couldn't buy or procure a firearm to take intoa school, I would do it. Do I want to? Hell no! But the simple fact is there are people who should never have access to highly capable firearms. And right now they do.

They already should not get the weapons as the law stands now. The government cannot or will not get the job done as it is. When we address the broken parts of the law/government/society. We the law abiding citizen should deal with more and more laws because the lawless will not follow the law????? What part of criminals don't care about the law am I not understanding? The more power given to the government the more powerless and dependant the people become. It will be perfect with no violence when we go to heaven, until then suck it up and get used to reality, humans are a violent race and Liberty is dangerous.

If forced to negotiate I would follow the Trump NK pattern, start from a position of power. We have the guns now, we are not the problem so we should stop wringing our hands over some imaginary law that has not come into being yet. If they smell our fear it will only embolden them. We overcame the last ban we can overcome the next.

Edited April 29, 2018 by jtallen83
grammer

[mrmackc]

Here is a text only copy of the article, now you don't have to go back to page #1, BTW I am still against licenseing citizens to own any firearm by a law that is in opposition to the 2nd amendment!

I am a gun industry insider, a lifelong gun owner and a vocal advocate for Second Amendment rights. I am a Texan and an American patriot who hauls my family to church every Sunday in a diesel pickup truck, where I sit in the pew and listen to the Word with a 9mm pistol tucked inside the waistband of my fanciest jeans.

Isn't this the part where the author inserts the inevitable “but”—as in, “I’m a firm Second Amendment advocate, but … ”? Well I’ve got no “buts” for you, because I don't need them. I believe there is a way to increase both our individual gun rights and our collective safety, if we can only get gun controllers to quit bitterly clinging to outmoded feature bans and gun registries, and convince gun rights advocates that “liberty” isn’t just about “what's in my gun safe” but also about being able to exercise one’s full spectrum of Second Amendment rights in every part of this great nation.

The idea is simple but powerful: a federally issued license for simple possession of all semi-automatic firearms. This license would allow us to carefully vet civilian access to semi-automatic weapons, while overriding state-specific weapon bans and eliminating some of the federal paperwork that ties specific firearms to specific owners.

I offer this idea not only because I actually want to live in a world where it, or something like it, is the law of the land, but also because I and my fellow gun nuts are worried that a storm is coming that will sweep away a substantial portion of our gun rights without really making the country safer in return. We're not even five months into a midterm election year, and 2018 has seen a string of high-profile incidents that have darkened the public’s view of civilian gun ownership: February’s massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, followed by this month’s shootings at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, and at a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee. In the aftermath of these killings, we’re hearing proposals for anti-gun measures that we thought were widely considered out of bounds in the gun control debate, like a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, a repeal of the Second Amendment, or even an outright ban on the private ownership of guns. Some of us think this will all blow over, as it always does. And maybe it will. But this time definitely feels different.

Our side faces a potent new enemy in the form of private-sector companies like REI, Delta Airlines, Citibank, YouTube and Reddit, which are taking an increasingly anti-gun stance. My fellow gun owners and I are now concerned not just with the potential erosion of our gun rights at the hands of our government, but also with the erosion of our ability to communicate and to educate about this topic in the online spaces that make up so much of modern civic life.

There is fear, despair and anger on both sides, and neither side wants to give an inch. We seem doomed to fight endlessly over the same handful of half-measures that neither side is happy with. A new approach—a federal gun license for semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15s used in the Parkland shooting and at the Nashville Waffle House—has the potential to make us all safer while offering a net increase in liberty for the country’s law-abiding gun owners.

Before I outline what such a license would look like, it’s important to identify the structural barrier that even moderate and discriminating efforts at gun control have run up against in recent decades. And no, that barrier isn’t a certain three-letter gun rights organization, nor is it the collective grievances of some benighted group of deplorables. Rather, it is the two pillars on which most of our modern life now rests: the market, and the forward march of technological innovation.

The newly reintroduced Assault Weapons Ban is emblematic of gun control proponents’ consistent failure to understand how gun technology and the gun market actually work in the 21st century. Gun bans that are based on outlawing certain firearm features (like the vertical foregrip or the adjustable stock) or limiting guns’ capabilities (for instance, by limiting the number of rounds of ammunition they can hold) are relics of a bygone era when you bought a gun and didn’t modify it without the help of a professional gunsmith.

Nowadays, the most popular rifles, shotguns and handguns are explicitly designed as modular weapon platforms, where parts can be mixed and matched with a few simple tools and no specialized expertise. In fact, not only is the AR-15 just such a modular and easily hackable platform, but so is the Army's new standard-issue handgun, the SIG M17 (available to civilians as the P320).

For modern firearms, the “gun” from the perspective of federal law is typically an empty (and increasingly 3D-printable) metal frame or polymer shell with a serial number stamped into it, while all the rest of the parts that actually make the gun work are widely available online to anyone with a credit card.

Calls to end the sale of these modular weapons platforms, and to return to the classic wood-stocked hunting rifles and revolvers of a bygone era, are nothing less than calls to roll back a few decades worth of market-driven technological innovation. It’s just not going to happen. Halfway attempts are doomed, too. Any attempt to grandfather in existing guns will necessarily leave the parts market intact (otherwise, how do you repair them?), and customers who want a “new” gun can buy a new, mostly preassembled parts collection, and then insert it into an existing frame or into a newly (and easily) fabricated one.

What, then, can be done about the violence that plagues our cities and the mass shootings that terrorize us in our malls, theaters, churches and workplaces? I think there is an answer, but it involves forgetting about the “what” and focusing squarely on the “who.”

A federal license for all semi-automatic firearms would rest on two simple and well-defined concepts, one technical and one legal:

1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically

reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.

2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.

Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they're easy to regulate.

Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.

Under a licensing regime that authorizes license holders for possession of semi-autos, it doesn’t matter whose semi-auto you’re holding, where you got it, how big the magazine is, or how terrifying it looks to the New York Times editorial board. It only matters that you’ve been vetted and are licensed to possess this category of weapon.

License holders could swap such guns among themselves without the need for any sort of official transfer mechanism—like today’s Federal Firearm License transfers—that leaves a paper trail with the state. Right now, all retail gun purchases, and private-party gun transfers in many states, involve a two-step process: First, the purchaser fills out a paper form that links the gun to the buyer, and second, the seller conducts a federal background check. Together, these two components are referred to as an “FFL transfer.” By federal law, these paper records are not allowed to be digitized or made centrally available.

If you were a federal gun license holder, you wouldn’t have to do an FFL transfer whenever you take delivery of a firearm. This would make buying a gun of any type exactly like buying alcohol or any other controlled substance (for example, prescription drugs): flash your authorization, pay your money and walk out the door with whatever it is you bought, wrapped in a paper sack for privacy if you like.

If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony. Don’t have one on your person, or in your car or home. As for taking possession of the types of guns you could have without a license, then it’s universal background checks and FFL transfers for you—basically the status quo, in most states.

There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license. Gun control advocates might want any gun that can fire without reloading included in the licensing regime (pump- and lever-action guns), and gun rights advocates might want current federal restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles dropped. These types of issues could surely be ironed out, as long as we can agree on the basic framework of trading all federal and state bans and registries for a national semi-auto licensing regime.

The framework I’m proposing is essentially a grand bargain: The gun control side gives up the possibility of a federal gun registry, specific states abandon their weapon bans and long gun registries, and in exchange the gun rights side accepts a brand new federal licensing scheme with real teeth.

This bargain would be scary for both sides. Cities like New York and Chicago would have to allow licensed, law-abiding citizens to own AR-15s and high-capacity magazines within their borders, and residents of gun-friendly states like Texas would have to accept a more thorough level of vetting of ownership of certain guns than they currently do. The gun rights side would be justifiably concerned that a hostile Congress and president could one day attempt to use the licensing scheme to limit the gun rights of large, law-abiding sections of the population, possibly on some arbitrary pretext.

If we can get past these concerns, this licensing scheme could make us both safer and more free. Gun safety advocates would have the security of knowing that anyone who lawfully possesses a semi-automatic weapon has been thoroughly vetted, and that there are clear criteria in place for temporarily or permanently revoking that license should the gun owner cross agreed-upon lines.

An initial set of licensing requirements would undoubtedly include having one’s fingerprints on file with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and a thorough background check that screens for things like domestic violence convictions and inclusion in the government’s terrorist watch list (assuming that list has been fixed by adding a way for innocent people to get their names removed). Gun controllers have long desired a national firearm licensing scheme that includes safe storage requirements and a demonstration of basic weapon proficiency; these things would be part of the negotiations. If they didn’t make the first cut, there would be a place to implement them should they gain popular support. Maybe gun controllers could offer the pro-gun side something it badly wants, like relaxing the federal restrictions on suppressors, in exchange for them.

The requirements above, when combined with background checks for all weapon transfers involving an unlicensed party, amount to universal background checks on steroids. In other words, you get universal background checks as a baseline for everyone, and then for the more dangerous class of weapons you get the extra vetting that the license requirements would provide.

The threat of temporary or permanent license revocation would create added leverage to enforce laws around disorderly conduct, road rage, domestic violence and similar offenses that may indicate that a person is a danger to others but don’t always rise to the level of a felony that gets them flagged as a prohibited person in the current background check system.

Finally, law enforcement officers would gain a powerful new tool for identifying and prosecuting bad actors: the ability to apprehend anyone caught in possession of a semi-auto without a valid license.

In exchange for the above rules, law-abiding gun owners would enjoy a new freedom to move to any state without surrendering any of their firearms, and to travel anywhere in the country without fear of being jailed for being pulled over with the wrong size magazine in their car. Most important, the many Second Amendment advocates for whom the threat of a national gun registry (and possible future gun confiscation) is a major concern could rest easier, knowing that such a registry would be taken off the table as a practical matter.

And all citizens would benefit from a fundamental shift in the tired, acrimonious American gun debate away from often comically inane fights over the particulars of weapon design (“how does a pistol grip turn an ordinary rifle into a weapon of mass destruction?”) and toward a more rational set of disputes around the requirements for semi-auto licensure, the grounds for license revocation, and the necessary due process requirements for license restoration.

I know you’re thinking that this scheme sounds too simple, and has a ton of obvious holes in it. It so happens that I’ve talked this idea through with a lot of really smart people on all sides of this debate. I've heard most of the good objections and have answers for them.

Let’s start with the pro-gun side:

Objection: A registry of people is more frightening than a registry of guns.

Me: You’re already in a ton of public and private databases that contain the most intimate details of your life. Everyone from Facebook to Google to Equifax to the Social Security Administration has a big, fat file on you. So if your objection to this scheme is that putting citizens in a government-accessible database is tyranny, then it’s already well past time for you to pick up your AR-15 and get your revolution on. (Just don’t use the internet to coordinate your revolution, or half a dozen government agencies will have all the details shortly after you and your fellow patriots have finished working them out.)

I’ve talked to at least one gun-rights person who doesn’t like this idea who is nonetheless enrolled in TSA Precheck. So just imagine this license as TSA Precheck, but for guns.

You should also recognize that the only thing currently standing between us and a de facto federal gun registry is an innocuous-sounding law banning the digitization of, and centralized access to, all FFL records. The anti-gunners are currently pushing for this law to be repealed under the banner of “common sense.” By taking the FFL process out of the loop for all transfers between license holders, this proposal takes even this backdoor registry attempt off the table as a practical matter.

Objection: Are you going to confiscate my semi-autos if I refuse to get a license?

Me: No, I’m not. I imagine there would be something like a three- to five-year grace period, during which time existing semi-auto owners would either get a license or transfer their guns to someone who does have a license.

Objection: I live in a state where I can buy any gun I want from a private party, without a background check or FFL transfer that puts me into a government database. So this decreases my liberty because now I’ll need a license to do something I can currently do without one.

Me: You’re not thinking big-picture enough. Yes, you're blessed to live in Gun Country right now, but what if you get a new job and have to move? Do you have the liberty to move anywhere in the United States and take your guns with you? Do you have the liberty to take your AR-15 “truck gun” with you when you vacation in a less-free state? No, you absolutely do not. But under my scheme, you will, because this whole thing is a nonstarter if the law that institutes the licensing regime doesn’t also prevent states from putting in place their own arbitrary feature bans.

Objection: I object to federal gun laws trumping local gun laws. Let states make their own gun laws.

Me: Sorry, friend, but you lost all credibility on that score when you backed the NRA’s push for federal legislation to force all states to recognize each others’ concealed carry permits (National Concealed Carry Reciprocity), which is nothing less than a federal override of state and local gun laws. Besides, are you really telling me you don't want to see the feds tell New Jersey and California where to stuff their gun bans?

Objection: Gun ownership is a constitutional right, and we don’t license constitutional rights. You don’t need a special license for free speech, for instance.

Me: You wouldn’t need a license to own lots and lots of guns of different types under this scheme, either. You would just need a license to own semi-autos, just like you need a license to broadcast over certain parts of the public airways.

Objection: Wouldn’t this federal license be a “kill switch” on the right to keep and bear arms? As you’ve conceded, a hostile federal government could change the requirements in such a way that bars almost all of us from getting guns.

Me: This would be a concern, but it’s already a concern. We may have to rely on the courts for protection. The gun control side is mistaken if it thinks it’s going to immediately begin to dictate entirely new terms of American gun ownership unilaterally in November. President Donald Trump is in the process of packing the federal courts with conservative judges, and he may get another Supreme Court pick before he leaves office. So even if gun controllers can get Congress to move their way, there's no guarantee that new laws will survive the inevitable court challenges. (Justice Clarence Thomas recently hinted that he thinks state and local assault weapon bans are unconstitutional.) Plus, there’s no possibility of a gun registry under this scheme, so no matter how bad it gets there’s even less of a threat of confiscation than there is under the current system.

Objection: The Constitution is my carry permit, and it’s also my semi-auto license.

Me: Alright, then. Good luck with that.

Now, the objections from the gun control side:

Objection: This licensing scheme looks impossible to enforce if we don't back it with a gun registry that ties specific guns to specific licensees.

Me: You’re confused by the fact that we happen to pair drivers’ licenses with vehicle registration, even though licensing and registration are separate things that happen for separate reasons.

A driver’s license just says, “This person is authorized to drive a vehicle of this class. Any vehicle, really, no matter who owns it.” We also require vehicle registration for a variety of other reasons (mainly related to insurance, liability and theft) that have nothing to do with keeping people who shouldn’t be driving from getting behind the wheel.

The specific goal of this semi-auto licensing scheme is to keep people who shouldn’t be shooting from picking up a semi-auto, and not to do other gun control things you'd really love to do—like tracing crime guns, or confiscating guns from people whose licenses have lapsed.

Also, I’ll let you in on a little secret: Universal background checks are also impossible to enforce without a gun registry. If you don't know what guns I own, then how can you know which gun I just traded to my golf buddy for a nice set of clubs? You can't. So you don’t have a registry currently, and you wouldn’t have a registry under this scheme. But at least under this scheme you wouldn’t need a registry, because you would have federally licensed gun ownership instead.

Objection: OK, but if we don't have a gun registry and we do away with FFL transfers for license holders, then what's to stop a license holder from selling a gun to a non-license holder?

Me: The law is what will stop them. As gun controllers are always fond of reminding people like me, criminalization is a deterrent. It would be illegal for a license holder to transfer a semi-auto to someone without a license, just like it’s currently illegal in many states for anyone to transfer any gun without an FFL transfer. In fact, you should go to jail and lose all your gun rights if you get caught—your license should be revoked, and you should be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database.

Besides, if you're someone who is willing to commit a felony in order to sell a gun to someone illegally and in a way that can’t be traced to you, then you can already do that by just grinding off the gun's serial number before you sell it on the black market.

This lack of a registry or of any paperwork at all accompanying the transfer of a weapon between two licensees may not be what you want, but it’s not any worse than the status quo. You’re not really giving anything up, here. And again, you’re getting federally licensed gun ownership for the most dangerous and popular category of weapons!

The ATF says it was “potentially a violation of federal law” for the Nashville shooter’s father to return his AR-15 to him. With a federal license, there wouldn’t be any question. In fact, in all of the recent active-shooter cases where the shooter had a history with police and red flags from family members, a licensing scheme could have provided a system to prevent the shooters from legally obtaining semi-automatic weapons.

Objection: You haven't said what the licensing requirements are. I think that anyone who wants to own a semi-auto should have four letters of recommendation, a yearly psychiatric evaluation, be a graduate of Ranger School, and have participated in at least one “Jeopardy!” Tournament of Champions.

Me: Yeah, we're going to fight over that. A lot, probably. But that fight would be way more reality-centered and sane than our current fights over pistol grips and barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks.

Objection: Someone could openly carry an AR-15 in Times Square under these rules!

Me: It will probably surprise you to learn that there’s actually no New York state law against the open carry of rifles, so the only thing currently prohibiting the AR-15-in-Times-Square scenario is a New York City ordinance. A federal gun license would not affect state and local open- or concealed-carry laws, which are a separate issue.

Objection: This won’t decrease the number of guns in circulation, or take guns that are really scary-looking to me out of civilian hands, or generally advance the cause of total civilian disarmament.

Me: Yep, you’re right. It won't do any of those things, and in fact it would probably do the opposite. A greater number of (vetted) law abiders would have more military-style weapons with full-sized magazines in cities and states where they can’t currently get them. If that’s unacceptable to you, then you and the guy who thinks the Constitution is his carry permit can fight meme wars on Facebook while the rest of us work on ways to keep the hundreds of millions of unregistered guns that are already in circulation out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and would-be mass shooters.

Jon Stokes is a founder of Ars Technica and a former editor for Wired. He writes about guns and technology for TechCrunch, AllOutdoor.com, TheFireArmBlog.com and other publications.

Edited April 29, 2018 by mrmackc
correct copying errors

[Sisco]

Never seen a thread get to six pages long faster!

[mrmackc]

After all the BS gets hauled and the AR / AK dust settles Do the right thing

sell all those old uguly semi-automatic rifles and pistols and buy a Remington 7600 3006 and a Ruger .357 or Redhawk .44 Mag and kill anything that walks on the N. American continent.

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by mrmackc

[mrmackc]

Oh well forget that idea to appease the  Anti-Gun of any kind culture to them a gun is a gun. Fight, Fight and keep on fighting!

[jtallen83]

18 minutes ago, mrmackc said:

Oh well forget that idea to appease the  Anti-Gun of any kind culture to them a gun is a gun. Fight, Fight and keep on fighting!

^^^^Yes, when asked to surrender ANY of my weapons I think a quote from General McAuliffe is most appropriate;

 

[ARTrooper]

[jtallen83]

Not directly related to the proposal here but Michael Baine explains most of my position better than I could. I do not agree with everything he says, he is giving up on the bumpstocks.

 http://www.downrange.tv/blog/down-range-radio-558-the-florida-school-shooting/40829/

This is an excellent podcast, highly recommend the series.

[unforgiven]

On 4/29/2018 at 10:18 AM, Sisco said:

Never seen a thread get to six pages long faster!

It's an intelligent conversation that's for sure

[98Z5V]

On 4/29/2018 at 5:13 AM, jtallen83 said:

 We overcame the last ban we can overcome the next.

We might NOT overcome the NEXT ban.  The goal is - there ISN'T another one. That is the real goal.

It's not the guns. It's the fucked up individuals. We -WE- can't get that point across.  Gun-grabbers will ALWAYS blame the gun.  That thing didn't shoot itself, damnit.

For the pic you posted, JT...  I have this... 

[98Z5V]

On 4/29/2018 at 8:18 AM, Sisco said:

Never seen a thread get to six pages long faster!

 

On 4/30/2018 at 6:31 PM, unforgiven said:

It's an intelligent conversation that's for sure

It was the beer in me that caused this...  I wasn't hearing any BS "not one more inch" crap, that's never gonna work in the future.

That argument is a non-starter, in the future.

We need to think of the future, instead of bitching about the past NFA 1934, GCA 1968, 1986 Brady BS...

Plan - PLAN - your resistance, and come up with something.  ANYTHING. Make it real.

This last round of BS just "activated" high school kids that aren't even allowed to legally vote yet, because they're fucking MINORS. They can't vote, they can't buy beer, they're lucky they can drive at 16 - and still think that texting and staring at their phone while driving is QUITE ALRIGHT, and not a hazard.  These fuckers eat Tide Pods...

You just GAVE them control, over this nation, in reference to guns rights - if you don't get off your "one more inch" kick, and fucking come up with something...

It's your ball...  

[blue109]

And nothing you propose will satisfy those who will accept nothing less than outright ban. There is no negotiation with that ideology.  Its as silly as suggesting muslim extremists will stop bombing stuff if we just give them good jobs. These antis dont care if you can pass a background check. They dont care if you are a good guy. They want you disarmed.  Nothing less. Allowing all firearms to be put under NFA like control has only one future outcome. I believe that is inevitable either way, so im not going to help it along.

I want my inches back. 

[jtallen83]

5 hours ago, 98Z5V said:

That argument is a non-starter, in the future.

We need to think of the future, instead of bitching about the past NFA 1934, GCA 1968, 1986 Brady BS...

Repeal is the plan just like confiscation is the plan on the left., hell the establishment altogether. No facts, no agreements will change this so we just as well fight the fight now. This is not a political war where slick negotiating will change the outcome, this is a culture war we are fighting. The only way to change the culture is at a grassroots level generation by generation. We have lots of catching up to do, take a kid to the range is the best answer I can think of.

4 hours ago, blue109 said:

I want my inches back. 

YES!

Edited May 3, 2018 by jtallen83
added culture war

[Sisco]

For want of a better location, I am posting this link here. This young lady is the future of firearm ownership.

http://www.startribune.com/liberal-maplewood-millennial-isn-t-your-typical-gun-rights-advocate/481513921/#1

[jtallen83]

9 minutes ago, Sisco said:

For want of a better location, I am posting this link here. This young lady is the future of firearm ownership.

http://www.startribune.com/liberal-maplewood-millennial-isn-t-your-typical-gun-rights-advocate/481513921/#1

This is exactly how we get our rights back and preserve Liberty, WIN THE CULTURE WAR! and it is war gentlemen............

[blue109]

While the school walkout crap is certainly cause for concern and indicative of a massive indoctrination effort, I think it is being overhyped. Those giant crowds were majority adults. The same adults who are at every leftist sheep-feed. Of the kids who were there...most of them dont have any emotional investment either way. They just want to skip school and pretend to be relevant for the day.  For every highly publicized screetch fest, there were 10 schools that didnt partake, but that isnt newsworthy. Most of those big walkouts happened in places that are ragingly anti gun anyway so its just another echo chamber. 

 

[98Z5V]

Take your kids, grandkids, friends, neighbors and acquaintances to an Appleseed Shoot.

Start there. I'm being serious.  They're conducted in every state, all over this country.

It's the best history lesson you'll hear/learn in a very long time, along with some great marksmanship training. 

https://appleseedinfo.org/

Click your state:

https://appleseedinfo.org/schedulemap/

 

[blue109]

My 7yr old always shows interest when I am building/cleaning. Im hopeful she will be into it. 

[jtallen83]

How long before all records of gun purchases are in the feds hands? Things like this is why I never trust the government in any negotiating, they agree to one thing and simply change the law down the road.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/federal-gun-registration-bill-introduced-florida-senator/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20180608_FridayDigest_177&utm_campaign=/blog/federal-gun-registration-bill-introduced-florida-senator/

[Bigfoot]

5 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

How long before all records of gun purchases are in the feds hands? Things like this is why I never trust the government in any negotiating, they agree to one thing and simply change the law down the road.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/federal-gun-registration-bill-introduced-florida-senator/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20180608_FridayDigest_177&utm_campaign=/blog/federal-gun-registration-bill-introduced-florida-senator/

Shakes head.

Wheres Thomas Payne when you need him.

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

Could not imagine any modern politician with above words coming out of pie hole.